Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Does Facebook Violate Its Users’ Basic Human Rights?

  • Discussion Note
  • Published:
NanoEthics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 08 February 2022

This article has been updated

Abstract

Society has reached a new rupture in the digital age. Traditional technologies of biopower designed around coercion no longer dominate. Psychopower has manifested, and its implementation has changed the way one understands biopolitics. This discussion note references Byung-Chul Han’s interpretation of modern psychopolitics to investigate whether basic human rights violations are committed by Facebook, Inc.’s product against its users at a psychopolitical level. This analysis finds that Facebook use can lead to international human rights violations, specifically cultural rights, social rights, rights to self-determination, political rights, and the right to health.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Change history

Notes

  1. For recent user numbers, as reported by Facebook, see: https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/. 

  2. See [9], Art. 24: “Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.”

  3. See [9], Art. 1: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

  4. See, for example, the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [9] and paragraph 42 of [11].

References

  1. Foucault M (2012) Discipline & punish: the birth of the prison. Vintage Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. Han B-C (2019) What is power? Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  3. Howard SJ, Surtees W (2016) A case series review of suicides associated with social media use in South Tyneside, England. J Royal Soc Med 7: 2054270415619322

  4. Han B-C (2017) Psychopolitics: neoliberalism and new technologies of power. Verso Books, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. United Nations, Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2001) Universal declaration on cultural diversity

  6. Brown W (1993) Wounded attachments. Political Theory 21:390–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Heidegger M (2008) The question concerning technology. In: Krell DF (ed) Martin Heidegger: basic writings. Harper Perennial Modern Classics, New York, pp 139–212

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bergson H (1935) The two sources of morality and religion. University of Notre Dame

  9. United Nations (1948) Universal declaration of human rights

  10. Brown W (2015) Undoing the demos: neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. Zone Books, Brooklyn

    Book  Google Scholar 

  11. United Nations, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) (2000) General comment no. 14: the right to the highest attainable standard of health (Art. 12 of the Covenant), 11 August 2000, E/C.12/2000/4. https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4538838d0.pdf. Accessed July 2019

  12. United Nations (1984) Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, 1465 UNTS. 85

  13. United Nations (1966) International covenant on economic, social, and cultural rights. Treaty Series 999: 3

    Google Scholar 

  14. United Nations (1989) Convention on the rights of the child. Treaty Series 1577

  15. World Health Organization (WHO) (2002) The world report on violence and health (edited by EG Krug, LL Dahlberg, J.A. Mercy, AB Zwi, and R Lozano). WHO, Geneva

  16. Dussel ED (2003) Philosophy of liberation. Wipf & Stock Pub, Eugene

    Google Scholar 

  17. Block JJ (2008) Issues for DSM-V: internet addiction. Am J Psychiatry 165:306–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Brailovskaia J, Margraf J (2017) Facebook addiction disorder (FAD) among German students—a longitudinal approach. PLoS One 12:e0189719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Brailovskaia J, Rohmann E, Bierhoff H-W, Margraf J (2018) The brave blue world: Facebook flow and Facebook addiction disorder (FAD). PLoS One 13:e0201484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rogers-Vaughn B (2016) Caring for souls in a neoliberal age. Palgrave Macmillan, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  21. United Nations, Economic and Social Council, Commission on Human Rights (2003) Economic, social and cultural rights. The right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (Report of the Special Rapporteur, Paul Hunt, submitted in accordance with Commission resolution 2002/31; fifty-ninth session of the Commission on Human Rights, Item 10 of the provisional agenda; E/CN.4/2003/58. https://www.un.org/womenwatch/ods/E-CN.4-2003-58-E.pdf. Accessed July 2019

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Brookfield, USA

    Alexander Sieber

Authors
  1. Alexander Sieber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sieber, A. Does Facebook Violate Its Users’ Basic Human Rights?. Nanoethics 13, 139–145 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-019-00345-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-019-00345-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation